Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a
Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was
planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a
lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family
and several of the victims’ families.

Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown
after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the
school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up
not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is
the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims'
families worship.

“From what I've been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the
court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed,"
Flashman told FoxNews.com. "Adam was apparently very upset about this.
He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he
was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him
off.”

Sometimes, it really is just the crazy. And if you let the confirmed crazies run around free until they kill someone, you're assured that eventually some of them are going to do it.

I haven't heard this too many places, but apparently Lanza's father was going to testify in the LIBOR scandal. This is very similar to the Aurora shooter, who's father was also scheduled to testify. Could be nothing...

Those who wish to ban firearms from our society operate on the silly idea that if law abiding citizens are all defenseless, there will be less crime.

Too bad John Wayne did not do a cowboy movie on this theme, where everyone lived safe, secure and crimefree lives in the Wild West because they did not have any firearms or know anything about their use. Instead of coming to the rescue, the US Cavalry could throw flowers and shame the marauding Indians into breaking off the attack. Not entirely unarmed, the Indians would still be able to use their favorite tomahawk, scalping knife, lance and bow.

I just had this discussion with my libertarian leaning wife. The question is simple, do people who are legitimately insane have the right to bear arms? I believe that they do. As horrible as these situations are, if we let the government pick and choose which groups get own firearms, well, that's a slippery slope.

Sadly a lot of the mentally ill now get their mental health treatment in prison. I work at one such facility. The psychiatric hospitals were Shangri-la compared to Corrections mental health programs. At least at the psych hospitals they could actually have a decent quality of life. As it stands in Corrections the only two treatment options are dope em up and lock em up.

Do you support any changes to US federal gun laws in either direction, easing or increasing them? If so, which specific changes do you support? I assume one is increased background checks to determine mental stability?

I recall an old Fred Friendly debate where they were talking about the homeless and when it was appropriate to give them money. The subject of the mentally ill homeless also came up and if they should be committed. One man, I don't recall who, said "If you wouldn't let children live unattended on the streets, why would you let the child-like?"

Back in my late 20's I was admitted to a alcohol/drug treatment in patient center for a month. Long story short, sober and clean since October 27th 1981. Marriage survived and still going strong for 37 years. Became a counselor years later and was promoted to Program Director (ran a center), but left to persue other career options. Under the current hysterial mind set, I should not be permitted to buy, own or use my collection of firearms since I've been in a form of mental institution. MMPI, IQ and CQ tested 4 times.

Mental evaluations prior to purchase or use would be an absolute disaster. Most all of the psychologists, sociologists and psychiatrists are more screwed up than their patients. Most people working in the mental health field do so because they think they fix their personal issues if they work in the field. Just about everyone I've encountered are far left, unicorn, puppies, kittens and rainbow chasing nut cases. If they are tasked to be the gun buying gate keepers, then they will find everyone nuts in one form or another.

BTW, I was an old school counselor: You're screwed up, but you'll get better inspite of my best efforts. You know what you need to do, now get busy.

I haven't heard this too many places, but apparently Lanza's father was going to testify in the LIBOR scandal. This is very similar to the Aurora shooter, who's father was also scheduled to testify. Could be nothing...

and

I wonder if he also discovered that he was not the son of the man he had been led to believe was his father.

There's a significant genetic link between high achievers and crazy offspring. Corporate CEOs have a disproportionate number of bipolar sons, and it's probably getting worse with the increase in associative mating. If you're high on the Dark Triad scale and you have kids with the daughter of a man also high on the Dark Triad scale, your sons likely have a higher chance of being unstable.

The kid, Adam, was apparently bright and depressed, shy/withdrawn and may have had Asperger's syndrome. And he was the brother of 3 or 4 year-elder Ryan. Parents divorced in 2009 after a long separation. Dad remarried. Mom didn't. Adam may have experienced physical, psychological, and social abuse(bad-mouthing/smearing)by brother Ryan and others. And may have been picked-on in school.Ryan works for Ernst & Young in accounting/finance-related field, like their Dad, Peter. Ryan may have won the sibling rivalry for Dad's performance-based approval. Adam may have felt profound neglect from his Dad.Mom, Nancy, doesn't appear much of a consolation prize. Likely narcissist, maybe using Adam in Munchausen-by-proxy kind of situation. Using his alleged "need" of her to shore-up her non-working standing in the community and shaky self-esteem.With at least one decent parent or mentor Adam would probably have been in the range of high-functioning normal, become an above-average computer programmer and developed better relationships than those afforded by his family.Oh, well.

Do you see now - if only they had followed my troika program of banning of high-cap mags, cutting index and middle fingers off, and herding them into my efficient work camp complex, no one would have to hire a child to do public service announcements reading off the victims' names. Such a better world it would be. I propose calling this inevitable progressive paradise: The People's Republag of Eutadpia, Etat Noir - or PREEN for short.

But mental health issues don't kill people, people kill people. Surely the radical libertarian position is to let them roam free — and just arm the rest of us with Uzis.

Fascinating. Who gets to define "mental health" and enforce it?Like ALL things government and medical industry, they would be entirely benevolent. It would all be for our own good.You are ignorant, not only of the nature of Power, but of the last 4 decades of the "mental health" issue and what they hope to accomplish with it - and what they already have.So, yes, your "radical Libertarian" solution is the best one by far, as it relates to human freedom and liberty. Action vs Consequences. Responsibility. You are in denial of Nature itself. You also have reading comprehension issues concerning this post. Tell us, in your emotional moralizing of late, what percentage of gun related deaths every year are black on black - and why is your media racist and not reporting this?

I think I'm much more comfortable living in a society with a few crazies running around shooting up schools from time to time than I would be living in a society where the government goes around "committing" people it deems to be crazy. Are you suggesting otherwise?

As someone mentioned: Question 1. WHO DEFINES WHAT MENTAL ILLNESS IS AND IS NOT?

The first ones diagnosed and locked up should be the TrueBelievers who cannot even count: What are the 20th Century death toll numbers at the hands of Govt - APART from Wars - once the people were disarmed by the State?

It is armed, gun owners who are pro-life, not you. How many instances did guns prevent a crime or save a life last year in the U.S.?

While I find your consistency admirable though misguided, this is... probably not a message that's going to resonate with the public. matt

Cinco used the term "legitimately insane". In your moral and intellectual superiority and your own special condescending way, you failed to DEFINE who is and is not legitimately insane - EXACTLY who that should be and what the parameters are.

Are you getting any definitions from the "Health" industry? Have you looked into the "Mental Health" industry and who/what is behind it and what they have said?

There are people on here who are pointing to the deal and how it works - your Faith in the System and your ignorance notwithstanding.

How many instances did guns prevent a crime or save a life last year in the U.S.?

The problem with such radical libertarianism is it's also an argument for allowing gays to marry, for the abolition of speed limits, the legalisation of hard drugs — and indeed utter anarchy. At which point, we may indeed all need guns, completing the circle nicely.

It doesn't matter. Crazy people are crazy people. You can be born with it. This guy was a freak. My daughter learned to shoot at about 10. Why isn't she crazy? I'm sure those drugs they are being fed doesn't help.

BUT. Sane folks will be taking the blame for this. They will outlaw "assault weapons", or put a homongous tax on ammo.

"The problem with such radical libertarianism is it's also an argument for allowing gays to marry, for the abolition of speed limits, the legalisation of hard drugs — and indeed utter anarchy. At which point, we may indeed all need guns, completing the circle nicely."

Government simply has no place defining or having anything at all to do with marriage, nor does it have any place telling a person what they should or should not ingest. If gays want to "marry" then who cares? You have every right not to recognize it as a legitimate marriage and to encourage others not to, as well. There's nothing radical about limited government.

(Reuters) - Millions of healthy people - including shy or defiant children, grieving relatives and people with fetishes - may be wrongly labeled mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on Thursday.

Wait a darn gone minute! .223/5.56 casings all over the place, and no comparable weapon near the alleged assailant, except for the trunk of his car? An AR within reaching distance of the alleged assailant, then maybe we have something concrete to go on.

I want to see the autopsies of the victims. Count the number of bullet holes in the victims and match against total number of casings found. Match ballistics of projectiles found, vs. casings again. And, speaking of autopsies, if the alleged assailant was near any kind of AR/HK/SKS/etc., any chance they found a glioblastoma?

What IQ did Lanza test at, at age 6? Where did he get in his mind, to dress as a Navy SEAL? Mask, body armor and all? I suggest all watch this. Just where do crazy people come from? Could an implant cause a glioblastoma?

Please...explain to me the political and cultural circumstances that will lead to a ban of all firearms. Please, explain this so obviously coming scenario. Or, you could just lock up the tin foil hat in the closet and slowly back away from the Temple of Doodlydoo.

No kidding!! Next thing you know the faggots will want to get married the caucasion way--with shotguns blazing and surrounded by trailer hitches. It's a slipper slope, I tell you.

You seem to live in a fantasy world. I do not recall seeing any Caucasian weddings where there is gunfire, except perhaps for a 21-gun salute at the wedding of those crazy royals (you dissing the royals?)

Tad said: The right to possess guns is so secure you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment rescinding the 2nd amendment to ban guns and slip down the slope you fear. Stop the crazy talk.

OR: Justice Roberts suddenly has a vision in which the emanation of a penumbra informs him that only a militia can keep and bear arms. Four other justices agree with him, and, well, even you ought to be able to do that math.

OR: Maybe they'll just cut to the chase, trot out the commerce clause, and ban all guns and ammo outright. Why not? Its used for everything else under the sun.

I think I'm much more comfortable living in a society with a few crazies running around shooting up schools from time to time than I would be living in a society where the government goes around "committing" people it deems to be crazy. Are you suggesting otherwise?

This isn't exactly how it works. You have to petition the government to lock a person up, and they have due process. A lot of talk is that in fact too much due process.

It takes this process playing out before the person has to turn in firearms, typically. In the shooters case, the process appears to have been started but not finished it.

This is one area where most people could agree. Crazy people having access to guns is not a great idea. In most domestic violence law, there is an expedited review to get a restraining order, ex parte, and to have a fast process to have guns removed after specific actions have been taken (i.e. specific threats). From a freedom perspective it's not great - there is still the ex parte restraining order order, and all too often the hearing happens to fast for the alleged criminal to have good representation. But the process may be helpful in getting guns away from crazy persons.

From all reports the mother seems to have been doing her level best, but she probably erred in having guns no matter how secured available to the shooter. And she died for that error. Instead of running off to court, she should have run off to a gun range and paid to have her guns stored offsite while she worked on getting her son well, or hospitalized.

We are under purposeful and eventually lethal attack by incipient totalitarians. We must act to silence the Lie Machine or we and future American generations will die as slaves in the Third World Hell that collectivists have created on the ashes of the old Republic.

@RienziOR: Justice Roberts suddenly has a vision in which the emanation of a penumbra informs him that only a militia can keep and bear arms. Four other justices agree with him, and, well, even you ought to be able to do that math.

Indeed. And, angels may descend from heaven and bless us all with songs of mirth.

We are under purposeful and eventually lethal attack by incipient totalitarians. We must act to silence the Lie Machine or we and future American generations will die as slaves in the Third World Hell that collectivists have created on the ashes of the old Republic

Knock yourself out, Frank. Put on the tin foil top hat, drive to candyland with your cane in hand and save us all.

What about the right to a trial, Tad? Is that not so constitutionally protected that the government couldn't possibly circumvent it? Did I imagine our president signed a bill stating they can kill American citizens they claim to be terrorists?

I've read some people propose psych testing before purchase of a firearm in the same way that we have backround checks. The test is presumably a one time deal but a person can keep the gun for any number of years or decades. Mental illness is so subjective. If we can't keep psychopaths out of police departments how can these tests be at all accurate without elininating a substantional numebr of mentally healthy individuals from ownership? If you fail a test what recourse is there? Are you permanently barred from ownership? What about weapons the person already owns? Doesn't this violate the 4th amendment to require a psych test without cause simply as a prerequisite for excirsising your 2nd amendment rights?

So we've got two deep-Thal Aspergerey kids, James Holmes and Adam Lanza, who when pushed ALLL the way up against the wall, with nowhere left to run or hide, decide to shoot it out.

I've talked to deep omega Thals. The pain and alienation they go through is unreal.

You can drug them up and call them crazy, then damn them when they go down shooting.

But it's a lie. Vox had it right the first time. The most dangerous man is the one who's got nothing to lose.

Both these guys picked rational targets. Even in the fog and the drugs, they knew exactly what they were doing. Some men just want to see the world burn. They were at that perfect age where a childhood of pain is converted into all-consuming hormonal rage at the world.

I think those who condemn these two don't understand the agony of Asperger's omega, the fragility of the soul under inexorable long term pain, the way the mind slips when given destabilizing compounds, and the impossibility of remaining sane without a support network and a line of retreat.

I would a million times rather not judge them, than earn the right by going through the same thing.

On May 18, 1927, Andrew Kehoe murdered 38 school children and 7 adults with dynamite bombs. He wounded 58 others. It was later determined that he had beaten his wife to death in the days preceding this attack.

Guns are the great equalizer, the tool that levels the field honest people are confronted by lunatics or thugs. For liberals, the concept of actually defending oneself against a violent attack is just too alien to think about. How sad.

I would a million times rather not judge them, than earn the right by going through the same thing.

Yeah, me too. But there's lots of things I'd rather not do. I'd rather not have watched my dad die. I'd rather not have written a nephew out of my life for becoming a meth addict. Hell, I'd rather not have fired the nice, but unproductive, guy I fired last week.

But I did all those things because I had to. They were all better than the alternatives, and I'm thankful I had the courage to do them.

You don't offer a valid either-or, Koanic. My choice isn't between judging the broken Lanza or going through what broke him. My choice is between judging him or letting him kill a bunch of innocent kids. It's no fun judging. But it's the grown up thing to do.

Our society is a fucking shamble because too many chronological adults are too chickenshit to judge people. Maybe that's the real reason Obama won - he votes "present" just like the yellowbelly voters that elected him.

I'm sure Lanza's life sucked. Those little kids weren't the cause of it. Everybody willing to look the other way for fear of judging someone has a share of the blame for their deaths.

Not that I ever questioned it, but it's good to see that my instinctual loathing of faggots is justified. The creatures have no integrity, either intellectually or in any other aspect of their vile beings. This is human garbage that views itself as special and entitled to its repulsive existence.

You don't get it. I regularly go through bouts of physical pain so severe I'd gladly blow my head off during them. I've lost relationships.

None of that compares to the long term agony an Asperger's omega like those two goes through. I've only brushed it, once or twice.

As terrible and irresistible as physical pain is, it eventually goes away and you forget about it. Getting shot is no big deal. What these kids went through is total soul destruction. That is what a wise man should fear.

Involuntary admissions were significantly restricted during the decade of the '70s. Prozac was released in 1987 and quickly came into general use. The following data are offered for your consideration.

So far, from 2010 through 2012, there have been 10 incidents killing 118. If this trend continues, the decade 2010 through 2019 will experience 33 mass killing incidents and kill 393!

It has been more difficult to obtain firearms since 1968 (the Gun Control Act of 1968) then at any prior time in American history. Prior to 1968, it was possible to buy any available firearm (except for Class III full autos) by mail order. What has changed is involuntary commitment process and the availability of SSRI drugs such as Prozac. Although the data do not prove causation, they certainly suggest that the relationship needs further exploration. By the way, it was far more difficult than I first believed to find these data. A mass murder is defined as having at least 4 victims and did not include purposeful gang killings such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre which killed 7 people on February 14, 1929.

You don't get it. I regularly go through bouts of physical pain so severe I'd gladly blow my head off during them...None of that compares to the long term agony an Asperger's omega like those two goes through...As terrible and irresistible as physical pain is, it eventually goes away and you forget about it. Getting shot is no big deal. What these kids went through is total soul destruction. That is what a wise man should fear.

Which kids are you talking about? The aspies or the kids they killed? Anyway, the kids this fucked up shit Lanza killed are dead. You're right about that, Mr. Getting-Shot-Is-No-Big-Deal. They're dead and either in God's grace or else unfeeling in a hole in the ground, and either way they're not suffering.

But they had families you know. People who loved them and who's souls have just been spit on, kicked, and maybe poisioned. And then there's the rest of us in society who aren't buring a child, but who have to deal with the fallout from a horde of idiots who think the solution is to disarm all the decent, law-abiding folks because, well, hell, becuase that's easier than judging a fucked up kid like Lanza.

I'm sorry he got broken. I think the people who created the institutions that did that to him have a lot to answer for - his sorrow as well as the sorrow of the families who lost their little children to his deranged notion of getting even. But that doesn't make it okay to let him go, to let the next one like him go. I'm sorry he got broken, but unless we can fix him, we can't let him run loose.

I get it. I get it. I get it more clearly every day. It's moral cowards who not only won't make a choice but who hate anyone with the courage to do so that are the rot in our society. All the simpering anti-gun twits are too afraid to do anything to defend themselves, or their families, or anyone else. And they hate the people who aren't afraid because seeing them makes the cowards feel bad, inadequate, and they can't stand that.

The right to possess guns is so secure you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment rescinding the 2nd amendment to ban guns and slip down the slope you fear. Stop the crazy talk.

Actually passing a constitutional amendment is the difficult way. The way within reach is to have the Supreme Court reinterpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective, not individual, right to keep and bear arms.

In the two most recent cases in this area, DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, the Court was split 5-4 in favor of upholding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Conceivably when Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, or Alito retires, the possibility will exist to replace them with someone who would decide in favor of the collective right. The same fear liberals have that just one more conservative justice is all that is needed to overturn Roe and abortion on demand should be felt by all those who believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

This is the strategy that the anti-gun crowd will take because amending the Constitution is much too difficult. Given that Obama is here for four more years, Hillary is in the wings, and the GOP is dying in front of our eyes, I think it's only a question of when, not if, this is going to happen.

What has changed is involuntary commitment process and the availability of SSRI drugs such as Prozac. Although the data do not prove causation, they certainly suggest that the relationship needs further exploration.

These SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) drugs are fascinating. Everyone reading here can easily find more information online about what I'm saying here in this little blurb. There are other classes of antidepressants, like MAOIs (Monoamine oxidase inhibitor), SNRIs (Serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), and tricyclics. Tricyclics are the old-fashioned antidepressants they used back in the 1950s. They've been phasing them out because of a lot of unwanted side effects, but they're still perscribed in certain instances, like when other drugs do not work. These drugs basically all do the same thing: increase neurotransmitter levels.

The general (Monoamine) theory is those with clinical depression have lowered levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain, so if you increase it, it should cure the depression.

Now, these drugs work. They do cure depression. They work very well at increasing the serotonin (and norepinephrine and dopamine). That's not the problem...

Here's the problem with the SSRI drugs:

- About 10-20% of the time, the person taking the drug does not respond to the SSRI. It does not help their depression. Why?- If you are under the age of 24 and take them, they can actually increase the suicide rate and suicide idealization. The FDA first warned about this back in 2007. Again, why?- In low levels of depression, these drugs are no better than just talking it out.- Sometimes taking the drug can lead to a paradoxical effect, which actually makes the depression symptoms worse. Again, why?

Here's the best part: no one knows why. Doctors do not have a clue.

Why do people in that particular segment not respond properly to the SSRI? Obviously it is not the serotonin level in those cases. They are guessing. So what they do is label it "atypical depression" then switch the drug used. Or jigger with the dose. Or start using different drugs in combination. That's why you keep seeing those people in the news with a medication list a mile long.

These drugs are definite step up from lobotomies, but it's still like performing brain surgery with a brick.

Mental evaluations prior to purchase or use would be an absolute disaster. Most all of the psychologists, sociologists and psychiatrists are more screwed up than their patients. Most people working in the mental health field do so because they think they fix their personal issues if they work in the field. Just about everyone I've encountered are far left, unicorn, puppies, kittens and rainbow chasing nut cases. If they are tasked to be the gun buying gate keepers, then they will find everyone nuts in one form or another.

MARSEILLES, France (Reuters) - A French psychiatrist whose patient hacked an elderly man to death was found guilty of manslaughter on Tuesday in a groundbreaking case that could affect the way patients are treated.

A court in Marseilles said Daniele Canarelli, 58, had committed a "grave error" by failing to recognize the public danger posed by Joel Gaillard, her patient of four years.

"Please...explain to me the political and cultural circumstances that will lead to a ban of all firearms."

The same ones that have led to de facto total bans in the UK, Australia, New York, and Chicago. The left is lying about their true objective, as usual, so there is no reason for anyone to cooperate with them on anything.

I hope I'm stating the obvious to most here, but given the consistent track record of brazen lies told by both the media and the government, as well as the incredible factual errors that have surrounded this mass murder, there's no good reason to accept what we're being told as the truth.

This should be especially applicable when citizens are threatened with prosecution for reporting things the government considers to be "misinformation."

Guns are the great equalizer, the tool that levels the field honest people are confronted by lunatics or thugs. For liberals, the concept of actually defending oneself against a violent attack is just too alien to think about. How sad.

Compare Japan. They have virtually no hand guns. Their gun violence rate, including suicide (which is abnormally high in Japan) is close to 100 times lower than the US. Yet people still can easily defend themselves against violent attack. It's possible because the attackers don't have guns.

Guns create an arms race. The next logical step being proposed is to arm school teachers and workers. The next step up in the arms race.

Any society, especially one as culturally sick as the US, has crazy people. Crazy people with access to guns (via theft, or via purchase) are a bad idea.

I am happy to have the 2nd amendment protecting the right to bear arms, but it's not useful to lie and say "you can't ban guns and expect it to reduce or stop gun violence". It certainly is possible. It's been done all over the world. It is possible.

Compare Japan. They have virtually no hand guns. Their gun violence rate, including suicide (which is abnormally high in Japan) is close to 100 times lower than the US. Yet people still can easily defend themselves against violent attack. It's possible because the attackers don't have guns.

Japan is a largely homogenous society. When comparing it to the US, you are comparing apples and oranges.

"Yet people still can easily defend themselves against violent attack. It's possible because the attackers don't have guns."

You commies have been recycling the same old, worn out, discredited talking points for 30 years now. Japan has a racially and culturally homogeneous society and is not comparable to those that are more "diverse." In the US, the homicide rate WITH KNIVES ALONE is higher than the homicide rate in all of Japan. Clearly, something here is different besides the availability of guns. If we look more closely, what we find is that among whites in the US, the crime rate is actually slightly lower than in Western Europe where there is less access to guns.

But let's stop cherrypicking for a moment and talk about the track record of gun control in other countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Burma, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Rwanda, and Pakistan? Let's discuss the fact that after confiscatory gun control measures were enacted in the UK and Australia, homicide rates increased.

"It certainly is possible. It's been done all over the world. It is possible."

Just keep clicking your heels together and telling yourself that "it's possible..." while ignoring observable reality, ignoring the fact that gun control has literally never delivered the results its advocates promised, and just hope that things will magically work out this time. And if your loved ones are being raped and slashed to pieces in the other room, just tell yourself that it isn't a part of your reality, and proudly recall that you chose the path that was right, even if it didn't work out perfectly this time.

"Crazy people with access to guns (via theft, or via purchase) are a bad idea."

To those who asked for the source of the stats quoted below, I developed them after hours of perusing various lists, news accounts, and published articles (all of which are available on the Internet). Be aware that list content was not consistent from source to source, in part because the definitions of a "mass killing" were not always provided. For my purposes, an event was listed if at least four were killed.

This list is actually my second effort to develop these numbers. After the first attempt I realized that my list contained some significant omissions, including the St. Valentine's Day Massacre (which killed 7) and the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing which killed 168 people. Neithe does it include government killings, such as the 1993 Waco assault on the Branch Davidians that in the end killed a total of 86 people (including ATF agent).

What is absolutely clear is that something changed dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s--and it was not an increased accessibilityy to firearms.Involuntary admissions were significantly restricted during the decade of the '70s. Prozac was released in 1987 and quickly came into general use. The following data are offered for your consideration.

"Actually passing a constitutional amendment is the difficult way. The way within reach is to have the Supreme Court reinterpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective, not individual, right to keep and bear arms.

In the two most recent cases in this area, DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, the Court was split 5-4 in favor of upholding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual's right to keep and bear arms."

After I queried 11B a couple of days ago about our status here in IL on anther thread, this is what he told me. I went out and researched it and actually found most of the useful information in support of his statement on the anti-gun / pro-gun-control sites.

They are still in awe as to how these two landmark decisions "changed the landscape" about guns in America and they are bound and determined to get justices on board that will work hard to re-interpret the 2nd amendment back to what it was before these two decisions ... that the right to bear arms is only granted in the context of "people" being part of a "state maintained militia" ... interpreting the words "the people" in the 2nd amendment to mean "the state".

IL in particular has a history of violating the rights of its people and is a very liberal state. Essentially everyone in the path of decision making here is a liberal and gun control focused / friendly. The current mood of country coupled with 11B's logic here doesn't bode well for IL or probably any other liberal-leaning states.

"We'd also have to increase our racism and kick out the Hispanics, blacks, and Asians. Diversity encourages violence after all."

Asians assimilate quite well. Of course, the other minorities try to get them to hate/blame whitey and vote for Obama. But look at mostly white/Asian communities in the U.S., Cananda and other places, and you'll always find it largely peaceful and productive.

Banning "things" never works and never has worked in all of history. If there is a demand, there will be a supply and no amount of Government intervention or legal deterrent will stop it.

Prohibition (banning of alcohol.) Drugs (esp pot, cocaine, hashish, X, etc - "low caliber" recreational stuff which can be easily compared in effect and risk to alcohol which is perfectly legal.) Pit bulls (any number of breeds or types of dogs which can be lumped together by "looks" not behavior.)

Any time we've tried to "ban" something a new, illegal supply chain and all of the necessary support structure to support it has emerged.

The upshot was instead of decreasing crime and removing the banned substance from the face of the earth, there were substantial increases in crime in totally new areas ("unintended and unforeseen consequences") and a huge proliferation of the banned items into all walks of life.

Banning "things" does not work. It is far more logical to look back at history and conclude that one must acknowledge the existence of the "thing" and put measures into place that would suppress demand and reduce the potential negative impact its "use" might have on society.

If this proves anything re: gun control laws and mass killings, it's that they've grown together. Compare buying a rifle in previous decades to buying one today. An FBI background check to buy a Ruger 10/22 at Wal-Mart? Gimme a break.

I don't think you can use Japan as a good comparison. Almost every way I can think of, they're 180 degrees different than us... from love of country, ethnicity, xenophobia, discipline in work, discipline in school. Even their criminal organizations are disciplined (compared to the black/Mexican gangs here)...

Assuming the above figures are correct, that comes out to about 468, or roughly one year's worth of murders in Chicago. Yet these events generate more attention and emotions than those nameless, faceless victims in Chicago.

Note that the overwhelming number of victims in Chicago are black, yet white liberals only seem to get up in arms about guns when whites are killed in a mass shooting. I wonder how blacks feel knowing that their votes help to push the white liberal agenda, yet those same white liberals seem to care little about the violence wrecking the black community.

If you consult the UN's data on gun homicides (google it), you'll see that countries with the fewest guns per 100k people have the highest gun homicide rates. The US 1st in guns and 20th in gun homicides. Data available is for 2007 - that same year, the US white was 0.6 per 100k (similar to other white nations) while the US black rate was 12.7 and the latino rate was 6.1.

Say, Koanic? Yeah, the normals have been getting on my nerves all my life too. I'm feeling especially grumpy today with the flu. What say we get together with Stickwick and have her check my math on this really cool new catalytic nuclear reaction I just discovered?

(Sure enough, when I first read "Judgment Day" as a kid, I saw myself as Professor Ormont. -- Justthisguy)

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.